Here's how Trump's infrastructure plan stacks up against the needs of America's roads and railways — and why it too might derail

Trump used the Amtrak derailment to push his infrastructure renewal plan, but while American infrastructure is in desperate need to repair, the crash was likely not tied to the quality of the rail line.Stephen Brashear/Stringer via Getty Images

The Amtrak crash earlier this month refocused President Donald Trump's energy on rebuilding the country's infrastructure, and Trump has touted his plan recently.

America's infrastructure system is dilapidated, fragile, and unsustainable after decades of neglect.

Trump has only allocated $200 billion in federal funds so far and has yet to provide details on how he plan on incentivizing states, investors, and city governments to put forward funds for the nationwide revamp.

Following the derailment of an Amtrak train along a new railway bypass in Washington earlier this month, President Donald Trump promoted his long-promised infrastructure plan on Twitter, writing that the disaster showed exactly why America's ailing public transport systems needs a revamp — and fast.

"The train accident that just occurred in DuPont, WA shows more than ever why our soon to be submitted infrastructure plan must be approved quickly. Seven trillion dollars spent in the Middle East while our roads, bridges, tunnels, railways (and more) crumble! Not for long!" Trump wrote.

On the heels of his tax reform win earlier this month, Trump touted infrastructure reform as one his goals that is "the easiest of all" to achieve — despite inevitable congressional battles between Democrats and Republicans on funding.

Investigators eventually found that the Washington crash was caused by irresponsible speeding on the part of train operators rather than outdated railways. But whatever the details of the disaster, Trump's recent statements have refocused public attention on the needs of America's decaying system, which was given a D+ rating by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) this year and lags behind systems in other developed countries in several key areas.

While the president's plan is still largely in the works, its current iteration has the right idea by seeking both federal and local funding — but with the federal government only covering a narrow 20% of the plan's expected cost, the plan's over-reliance on state and private participation will make it a hard sell on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

The low rating the ASCE gave American infrastructure overall is nothing new — the group gave the US the exact same grade in 2013. While some crucial areas like inland waterways, levees, ports, and rail saw slight improvements in quality since 2013, other elements like public transit got worse, leaving the overall state of infrastructure across the country largely unchanged.

The main problem with transportation infrastructure in particular is its age. While America's roads, bridges, railways, and waterways were built to be cutting-edge five decades ago, they have not been adequately updated since then. As a result, infrastructure in the US ranks substantially below its European counterparts in terms of resilience and sustainability — because of poor maintenance over the years, inspectors have found that American infrastructure is inefficient, wasteful, environmentally unfriendly, and does not rebound easily from weather or use-related wear and tear.

A look at just a few of the problems facing America's infrastructure network reveal the deep inadequacies that have resulted from this decades-long lack of attention. Almost 40% of America's bridges are 50 years old or older according to the ASCE, and 9.1% of them are in structurally deficient. Roads and highways are becoming more dangerous as a result of inattention, with one out of every five miles of highway being in "poor" condition. Railways and waterways, like bridges and roads, suffer from out-dated architecture, and aging pipe systems, poorly maintained dams, and strained power grids that all require immediate attention over the next few years if they are to continue functioning in the face of mounting usage and environment-related challenges.

At the root of this problem is money. Insufficient funding was one of the leading causes for why the aging US infrastructure system had not been improved — bridges alone require $123 billion to be fully rehabilitated, and although major areas of infrastructure like freight rail has been able to garner large investments for ongoing projects, passenger trains still suffer from a lack of funds.

Trump's plan relies heavily on local funding, but doesn't provide incentives for states to put up their own cash

The biggest problem Trump's infrastructure plan will have to tackle is where to find the $1 trillion needed to repair and modernize America's transportation, power, and water networks.

So far, Trump's plan includes only $200 billion in federal funds — 20% of the necessary funding for the plan — for infrastructure projects and rehabilitations across the country, and expects the rest to come from private, state, and other local sources, according to Politico. A combination of funding sources seems to be the right move — the ASCE encourages "dedicated public funding sources on the local, state, and federal levels."

Private investors are certainly willing to engage in major infrastructure projects, and have already started putting money on the line for such projects without Trump's help. But without plans at the local level, these funds can achieve little, according to Scott Zuchorski, senior director of Fitch Rating's global infrastructure group.

"It's a good thing money is available," Zuchorski told the Washington Examiner. "But to put the money to use, there have to be projects. And that requires public-sector support, from a financial standpoint, and to be project champions to ensure the projects get done."

Another recommendation of the ASCE was utilizing public-private partnerships for infrastructure projects. While Trump had initially stated that he would expand public-private partnership frameworks set up by the Obama administration, he has since walked back from this proposal after apparently hearing from Vice President Mike Pence that such partnerships "didn't work" when he was governor of Indiana.

President-elect Donald Trump stands with Vice President-elect Mike Pence at a news conference at Trump Tower on January 11, 2017 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

But now that such partnerships are in question, Trump has to figure out how to secure even the slim federal allowance of $200 billion he hopes to put forward. So far, he has pledged to cut other federal programs to do so, and has floated raising the federal gasoline tax, which has remained the same for more than 20 years. Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, told Politico that the options for Trump are dwindling.

As for the remaining $800 billion, the Trump administration has stated that it wants states, local governments, and investors to compete for federal funding, and to put forward funds of their own. The ASCE has advocated having the federal government come up with tax credits for states that raise money, and recommended that Washington match local funds.

Democrats and Republicans alike have serious doubts about how Trump would incentivize states to come up with funding on their own.

"They're not going to do that to repair the Interstates. They're not going to do that to repair the 50,000 bridges that are structurally unsound," Sen. Bill Nelson, a ranking Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, told Politico. "They're not going to do that for the expansion of sewer and water systems and broadband."

Nelson told Politico that no state would be willing to raise their own taxes to fund infrastructure. The committee's chairman, Bill Shuster, also has his misgivings about Trump's open-ended proposal.

"Well, I gotta see exactly what they mean by it," Shuster said in reference to state participation. "Some of it sounds a little bit like devolution. And I've not talked to a single governor that wants the federal government not to have a role. It's a national transportation system."